Archive for the ‘Tax Policy’ Category

Raising our Taxes and Killing Social Security via the Republican’s Proposal for an Inflation Tax in Tax Reform

This so-called “Tax Reform” is going to raise our tax burdens while killing social security. The Republicans have proposed, and Democrats have agreed, that actual inflation should not be recognized in future years, limiting inflation adjustments of tax brackets to increase tax on persons who earn more because of inflation, and decreasing social security benefits by half over 20 years. This Tax Reform, besides reducing retirement opportunities for public employees, imposes “Chained CPI” (also known as the inflation tax) upon social security benefits to keep them from increasing and upon tax brackets to keep them from increasing as well. But tax brackets not increasing is bad for taxpayers. Tax brackets that do not move up to account for actual inflation require a higher tax rate be paid on future income as actual inflation pushes it into the next bracket.

I thought Republicans wanted lower taxes imposed on people who sweat and toil? Or do Republicans actually want lower taxes only on idle passive investors?

What if I like organic apples?

How’s that again? “Chained CPI” is sold as the savior of Social Security (see Heritage Foundation explanation). The example employed by Heritage in favor of Chained CPI: if apples go up in price, then consumers stop eating apples and eat cheaper oranges instead. What if I prefer apples? What if I am allergic to oranges? To my actual point: it is not a ‘choice of apples versus oranges world. It’s a choice between quality and cheaper (generally imported) goods. Chained CPI over time eliminates the local farmer’s organic apples in favor of the imported, genetically modified, pesticide grown cheap apples. Chained CPI requires that we reduce lean meat (sorry vegans) in favor of affordable fast food.

Chained CPI is a system built on forcing a degrading quality of life onto retirees.

Compounded over time, it’s a choice between affording medication and going without medication, giving up restaurant dates with my spouse in favor of TV dinners. The monthly annuity from social security, as little as it is relative to a 15.4% pay-in of salary (albeit capped, but so are benefits) over 40 years, could be cut significantly over 20 years (see New Republic explanation) in respect to what it can actually buy in today’s terms. In 20 years when my generations retirees wake up to this death by a thousand substitutions, the monthly social security annuity is so relatively inconsequential, it won’t be worth discussing any longer. Worse, over these 20 years, our tax bills will increase annually via the Chained CPI bracket creep that keeps brackets from adjusting upward as our wages hopefully increase. So inflationary tax takes away our ability to try to mitigate the loss of our catchup retirement and social security. We MUST work, if able, until we drop dead, assuming that we are not substituted for a cheaper wage worker.

Retired, Older Experience Hirer Inflation Than Younger Population

The Congressional Research Service has published a study that finds that elderly persons actually experience higher inflation than younger ones (see CRS Research Report A Separate Consumer Price Index for the Elderly?). Instead of going the wrong direction to a Chained CPI, the CRS suggests a CPI for the elderly spending patterns to be called CPI-E.

Follow the impact analysis of the 2018 tax updates after these pass by a team of experts who will map out how these affect your clients and what planning you need to do – TaxFacts Online.

It has been several years since President Obama pushed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the “ACA”), which is a health care overhaul aimed at providing millions of American with health insurance, through Congress. Read the article here.

According to the White House, the goal of the ACA is to improve health security by: (1) creating comprehensive health insurance reform that provides more ways to hold insurance companies accountable, (2) lowering health care costs, (3) guaranteeing more health care options, and (4) enhancing the overall quality of the American health care system.

As many American, corporations and small businesses are aware, the gateway to an improved healthcare system commenced October 1, 2013 with the implementation of the exchange system. However, some may not be aware of the potential tax benefits awaiting employers. This highlight will specifically address the tax incentives that are available to both large and small businesses.

Critics argue that such competition leads inevitably to a “race to the bottom,” with the result ofreducing tax rates and revenue everywhere. But Dr. Andrew Morriss, Texas A&M Law explains, that anyone who has ever filled out a tax return knows, tax rates are just one facet of tax competition. Jurisdictions can compete over a wide range of tax system attributes – all the way from the complexity of the system to special provisions designed to advantage particular forms of investment to general depreciation rules.

Did you know there’s a free, online program to help teachers and students learn the “hows” and “whys” of taxes? The IRS calls it “Understanding Taxes.” It was designed by the IRS and teachers to make learning about federal taxes as easy as A-B-C.

Accessible (web-based)

Brings learning to life

Comprehensive

Here are six more reasons to check out the Understanding Taxes program:

1. There are thirty-nine easy, relevant and fun lessons available 24/7.

2. A student can quickly look through the program and skip around.

3. A series of tax tutorials guides through the basics of tax preparation. Another feature is a chance to test knowledge through tax trivia. There’s also a glossary of tax terms.

4. Teachers can customize the interactive program. It’s easy to add to a school’s curriculum.

5. No need to register or login to use the program.

6. The program is a great way to learn about the history and theory of taxes in the USA.

The Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are concerned that certain recent inversion transactions are inconsistent with the purposes of sections 7874 and 367 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The Treasury Department and the IRS understand that certain inversion transactions are motivated in substantial part by the ability to engage in certain tax avoidance transactions after the inversion that would not be possible in the absence of the inversion. In light of these concerns, this notice announces that the Treasury Department and the IRS intend to issue regulations under sections 304(b)(5)(B), 367, 956(e), 7701(l), and 7874 of the Code.

Section 2 of this notice describes regulations that the Treasury Department and the IRS intend to issue that will address transactions that are structured to avoid the purposes of sections 7874 and 367 by (i) for purposes of section 7874, disregarding certain stock of a foreign acquiring corporation that holds a significant amount of passive assets; (ii) for purposes of sections 7874 and 367, disregarding certain non-ordinary course distributions; and (iii) for purposes of section 7874, providing guidance on the treatment of certain transfers of stock of a foreign acquiring corporation (through a spin-off or otherwise) that occur after an acquisition.

Section 3 of this notice describes regulations that the Treasury Department and the IRS intend to issue that will address certain tax avoidance by (i) preventing the avoidance of section 956 through post-inversion acquisitions by controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) of obligations of (or equity investments in) the new foreign parent corporation or certain foreign affiliates; (ii) preventing the avoidance of U.S. tax on pre-inversion earnings and profits of CFCs through post-inversion transactions that otherwise would terminate the CFC status of foreign subsidiaries and/or substantially dilute the U.S. shareholders’ interest in those earnings and profits; and (iii) limiting the ability to remove untaxed foreign earnings and profits of CFCs through related party stock sales subject to section 304.

Section 4 of this notice provides the effective dates of the regulations described in this notice. Section 5 of this notice requests comments and provides contact information for purposes of submitting comments.

Combing through the IRS’ income tax data by county and by zipcode can provide valuable insight for, by example, where to locate a business that depends on foot traffic, where to live (for a well funded local public school) and where to direct marketing efforts for financial planning and wealth management.

Take for instance California. Some counties have substantially more tax filers in the category above $200,000 income, than others. The entire state has 802,100 tax filers reporting $200,000 and greater income, 83% being married couples (665,110). That’s almost twice New York State’s with just 413,720 (of course, to understand New York City, I would need to add in the metropolitan stats from the tri-state Connecticut and New Jersey suburbs of the City). However, Texas beat out New York at 433,150 high earner returns, whereas Florida only had 278,560.

Circular 230 is a document containing the statute and regulations detailing a tax professional’s duties and obligations while practicing before the IRS; authorizing specific sanctions for violations of the duties and obligations; and, describing the procedures that apply to administrative proceedings for discipline. Circular 230 is the common name given to the body of regulations promulgated from the enabling statute found at Title 31, United States Code § 330. This statute and the body of regulations are the source of OPR’s authority. Title 31 seeks to insure tax professionals possess the requisite character, reputation, qualifications and competency to provide valuable service to clients in presenting their cases to the IRS. In short, Circular 230 consists of the “rules of engagement” for tax practice. The underlying issue in all Circular 230 cases is the tax professional’s “fitness to practice” before the IRS.

The U.S. Tax Code: Love It, Leave It or Reform It!

Watch the recorded hearing’s webcast (link via Logo above)

Wyden Statement on Corporate Inversions and the Need for Comprehensive Tax Reform (excerpt):

The U.S. tax code is infected with the chronic diseases of loopholes and inefficiency. These infections are hobbling America’s drive to create more good-wage, red, white and blue jobs here at home. They are a significant drag on the economy and are harming U.S. competitiveness. The latest outbreak of this contagion is the growing wave of corporate inversions, where American companies move their headquarters out of the U.S. in pursuit of lower tax rates.

The inversion virus now seems to be multiplying every few days. Medtronic, Mylan, Mallinckrodt and many more deals have either occurred recently or are currently in the works. Medtronic’s proposed $42 billion merger with Covidien was record-breaking when it was announced in June. But the ink in the record books had barely dried when AbbVie announced its intention on Friday to acquire Shire for almost $55 billion. According to the July 15th edition of Marketplace, “What’s going on now is a feeding frenzy … Every investment banker now has a slide deck that they’re taking to any possible company and saying, ‘you have to do a corporate inversion now, because if you don’t, your competitors will.’”

Over the past few months, we’ve seen a handful of legislative proposals to address the issue of inversions. Most of them are punitive and retroactive. Rather than incentivizing American companies to remain in the U.S., these bills would build walls around U.S. corporations in order to keep them from inverting. …

Hatch Statement at Finance Committee Hearing on International Taxation (excerpt):

For example, in 2013, the OECD launched its Base Erosion & Profit Shifting, or BEPS, project. While we appreciate the OECD’s efforts in bringing tax authorities together to discuss and work through issues, many of us have expressed concern that the BEPS project could be used by other countries as a way to increase taxes on American taxpayers. ….

This approach, in my view, completely misses the mark.

While it may put a stop to traditional inversions it could actually lead to more reverse acquisition inversions as our U.S. multinationals would, under this approach, become more attractive acquisition targets for foreign corporations.

Whether it is traditional corporate acquisition inversion or a reverse acquisition inversion, the result is the same: continued stripping of the U.S. tax base. …

Two global banks, Deutsche Bank and Barclays Bank, and more than a dozen hedge funds, such as RenTec, misused a complex financial structure to claim billions of dollars in unjustified tax savings and to avoid leverage limits that protect the financial system from risky debt, a Senate Subcommittee investigation has concluded. The improper use of this structured financial product, known as basket options, is the subject of a 93-page report and 5 hours of testimony.

Two global banks and more than a dozen hedge funds misused a complex financial structure to claim billions of dollars in unjustified tax savings and to avoid leverage limits that protect the financial system from risky debt, a Senate Subcommittee investigation has found.

The HNWU, which was set up in 2009, is made up of about 400 staff in 31 customer teams. HNWU deals with the tax affairs of the 6,200 wealthiest individual customers of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) – those with a net worth of £20 million or more.

When the unit takes ownership of a customer’s tax affairs, both the customer and their authorised tax agent or adviser will receive a letter welcoming them to HNWU. This letter also contains contact details for their Customer Relationship Manager. The relationship manager has detailed oversight over the customer and develops a close understanding of the wealthy individuals tax risks.

build relationships to better understand these customers and make it easier for them to pay the right amount of tax

tailor service delivery for these customers through proactive engagement and provide a single point of contact and a holistic approach to their tax affairs

The program, through good customer engagement with a focus on influencing behaviour, has led to voluntary compliance of the majority of customers, enabling HMRC to allocate its audit resources against noncompliant taxpayers.

Cooperative compliance means enhancing the relationship between HMRC and our customers to deliver an outcome where both parties work together to achieve the highest possible level of compliance at appropriate cost. This approach is increasingly being recommended as a feature for revenue organisations for customers with complex affairs. It reflects the growing mutual interest in being as certain as possible about tax liabilities and in ensuring that there are no surprises in any later reviews of these liabilities.

Cooperative compliance is not any kind of preferential treatment which compromises the legal position. In essence it forms part of the compliance risk management process – adding deeper and broader understanding of the world in which your client operates to our ongoing dialogue. This approach is one that we wish to have with our HNWU customers. It does of course rely on the foundation stones of a relationship characterised by trust, openness and transparency. We want to move away from only using reactive time consuming formal enquiries to a position where we can have productive pre-filing discussions which help us better understand our customers’ actions, processes and intentions.

Certainty of Positions

… The objective is to give earlier assurance, where appropriate, that we don’t intend to open an enquiry or don’t require further information. Where we are able, we will write to you and your client if no further action is needed to let you know this, rather than letting you wait until the end of the statutory enquiry period. This is more likely to be the case where we have established an ongoing dialogue about your client’s tax affairs. Customers who participated in the trial were positive about the benefits of this approach.

New Individual and Corporate Rate Structure: Flattens the code by reducing rates and collapsing today’s brackets into two brackets of 10 and 25 percent for virtually all taxable income, ensuring that over 99 percent of all taxpayers face maximum rates of 25 percent or less. The plan also reduces the corporate rate to 25 percent.

Larger Standard Deduction: Makes the code simpler and fairer by providing a significantly more generous, inflation-adjusted standard deduction of $11,000 for individuals and $22,000 for married couples.

Larger Child Tax Credit: Increases the child tax credit to $1,500 per child, adjusts it for inflation going forward and expands the number of families that can claim the credit.

Simpler, Improved Taxation of Investment Income: Taxes long-term capital gains and dividends as ordinary income, but exempts 40 percent of such income from tax – resulting in a three percentage point decrease from the maximum rates individuals pay today on such income while also achieving the lowest level of double taxation on investment income in modern history.

No AMT: In addition to lowering tax rates for families and all job creators, the plan repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) for individuals, pass-through businesses and corporations.

Easier Education Benefits: Adopts recommendations stemming from the bipartisan working groups to consolidate education tax benefits so, along with the additional money from stronger economic growth, families can more easily afford the costs of a college education.

Modernized International System: Modernizes the international tax code for the first time in more than 50 years while protecting jobs, wages and profits from being shipped overseas.

Permanent R&D Incentive: Invests in innovation by making permanent an improved Research & Development Tax Credit.

More Affordable Healthcare: While the plan generally leaves ObamaCare policies untouched and for a later debate on healthcare, there are two main exceptions given strong bipartisan support for: (1) repeal of the medical device tax and (2) repeal of the medicine cabinet tax, which prohibits use of funds from tax-free accounts to purchase over-the-counter medication without first obtaining a prescription.

IRS Accountability: Cracks down on IRS abuses and reduces massive waste, fraud and abuse. The plan also contains provisions prohibiting implementation of recently proposed rules affecting 501(c)(4) organizations and provides victims with information regarding the status of investigations into violations of their taxpayer rights.

Infrastructure Investment: Dedicates $126.5 billion to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) to fully fund highway and infrastructure investment through the HTF for eight years.

Simplification for Seniors: Reflecting a proposal supported by AARP and ATR, the plan requires the IRS to develop a simple tax return to be known as Form 1040SR, for individuals over the age of 65 who receive common kinds of retirement income like annuity and Social Security payments, interest, dividends and capital gains.

Charitable Giving: Expands opportunities to make tax-deductible contributions past the end of the tax year, makes permanent conservation easement incentives, simplifies exempt organization taxes and sets a floor instead of a cap to the amount of donations that can be deducted. The economic growth in this plan will increase charitable giving by $2.2 billion annually.

Shrinks and Simplifies the Income Tax Code: In addition to easing complexity and compliance burdens by adopting a larger standard deduction, enhanced child tax credit and lower rates, the plan repeals over 220 sections of the tax code; cutting the size of the income tax code by 25 percent.

In keeping with previously released drafts, the Committee seeks input and feedback on technical and policy issues raised by the draft released today. The Committee also invites input on the accompanying technical explanation prepared by the JCT staff, a document that could serve as the basis for similar legislative history on any future tax reform legislation that may be considered by the Committee. Additionally, as it further examines options arising from the budgetary and economic analysis, the Committee is especially interested in receiving constructive feedback on areas listed below.

1. Extenders Policy ($1 Trillion): The proposal has been scored by JCT as deficit neutral; it does not increase the budget deficit relative to the projected deficits for the FY2014-23 budget window. CBO’s revenue baseline for this period assumes that a number of tax policies expire and are not renewed. However, CBO has noted that “[n]early all of those provisions have been extended previously; some, such as the research and experimentation tax credit, have been extended multiple times.” Including a permanent extension of these policies would result in the revenue baseline being almost $1 trillion lower over the FY2014-23 budget window than projected. In such a scenario, the proposal would therefore reduce the deficit – mostly through revenue increases – potentially by as much as $1 trillion (without considering all potential interactions among those policies and the proposal). CBO annually presents an “alternative fiscal scenario” that assumes these tax provisions are made permanent – the same assumption generally used for spending programs in CBO’s traditional baseline. The Committee is interested in feedback on which (including none or all) of these expiring tax provisions should be included in the revenue baseline for purposes of determining whether the proposal is deficit neutral.

2. Dynamic Revenue ($700 Billion): JCT’s analysis shows that the additional economic growth that would result from the enactment of tax reform would generate up to an additional $700 billion in tax receipts over the FY 2014-2023 budget window as a result of increased employment and higher wages. This additional revenue, however, is not taken into account as part of JCT’s determination that the proposal is deficit neutral. As a result, under the proposal as currently structured, this additional revenue would be available to the Federal government for a variety of purposes. The Committee is interested in feedback on how this additional revenue should be treated (e.g., should it be used to further lower tax rates or to provide other tax benefits, should it be dedicated to deficit reduction, or should it be dedicated to some combination of the two).

3. Household Impact: The proposal has been scored by JCT as being distributionally neutral; it does not significantly change the share of taxes paid by or the average tax rate for each income cohort reported by JCT. However, each income cohort reported by JCT includes a heterogeneous mix of taxpayers. For example, the combination of lower rates, the increase in the size of the standard deduction, and the reforms to the child tax credit and EITC will affect households differently depending on the number of children in the household and whether the taxpayer files jointly. The Committee is interested in feedback as to whether and how these more detailed circumstances should be analyzed and whether there are certain distributional outcomes that are more preferable than others (e.g., effects on households with multiple children versus households without children within the same income cohort).

4. Economic Modeling: JCT’s analysis of the proposal includes an analysis of the macroeconomic effects of tax reform on the U.S. economy, which is sometimes referred to as a dynamic score. This dynamic score shows that the proposal would result in substantial additional economic growth and job creation as compared to the status quo. JCT used two different economic models and a variety of assumptions to calculate the dynamic score. The two models take different approaches to modeling the impact of the proposal on the U.S. economy. For example, one model, the MEG model, cannot fully account for the breadth of the changes to international tax policy made by the proposal and therefore understates the extent of additional investment in the U.S economy, particularly for investment in high-technology, IP-intensive sectors. The OLG model, on the other hand, contains a fiscal constraint that requires the debt to GDP ratio to be held constant between the pre- and post-reform economy, thus failing to capture the full benefits of reduced budget deficits on the economy. The Committee is interested in feedback on the methodology and parameter estimates used by JCT in performing the macroeconomic analysis and recommendations on how this analysis can be improved.

5. Greater Compliance: The current complexity of the tax code makes compliance difficult and facilitates billions of dollars in improper payments and fraud. The most recent estimate shows that the tax gap amounts to $450 billion annually. The proposal includes a number of reforms that would substantially simplify the tax code and improve reporting and compliance. This improved compliance is partially – but not fully – incorporated into JCT’s analysis of the proposal. The Committee is interested in feedback on how to analyze the impact of the proposal on improving compliance, closing the tax gap, and reducing improper payments and fraud. The Committee is interested in receiving analysis that would quantify the extent of the improved compliance and recommendations for how measurements of improved compliance should be factored into any analysis in determining whether the proposal is deficit neutral.

Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Code provides for the deduction of medical expenses not otherwise covered by insurance for medical care of the taxpayer, his spouse, or a dependent. Under Section 213 medical care is defined as “amounts paid for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease.” Prescribed drug means “a drug or biological requiring a prescription of a physician.”

Regulation Section 1.213-1(e)(2) defines medicine or drug “as items legally procured and generally accepted as falling within a category of medicine or drugs.” At first glance based on the Code it would appear that so long as the taxpayer met the requirements of Section 213, in states where medical marijuana is authorized, expenses incurred for its purchase would be deductible.

The National Taxpayer Advocate provides the following > report information < on the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

Earned Income Tax Credit and Family Credits

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable federal income tax credit for low to moderate income-earning individuals and families. If you qualify, the credit could be a maximum amount of up to $6,044 in 2013. This means you could pay less or no federal tax or even get a refund.

The EITC is based on your earned income and whether or not there are qualifying children in your household. You must file a tax return to claim the EITC and if you have children, they must meet the relationship, age and residency requirements.

The National Taxpayer Advocate reported that the IRS Incorrectly Bans Many Taxpayers from Claiming EITC (see > Taxpayer Advocate Report on EITC < ) Excerpted from the National Taxpayer Advocate report…

Section 32(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) authorizes the IRS to ban taxpayers from claiming the earned income tax credit (EITC) for two years if the IRS determines they claimed the credit improperly due to reckless or intentional disregard of rules and regulations. This standard requires more than mere negligence on the part of the taxpayer.

According to IRS Chief Counsel guidance, a taxpayer’s failure to participate in an EITC audit does not justify imposing the ban. Once the IRS imposes the ban, any EITC claimed in the next two years will be disallowed even if the taxpayer is otherwise eligible for the credit.

IRS data shows:

The IRS imposed the ban improperly almost 40 percent of the time in 2011;

Taxpayers who were (but for the 2011 ban) eligible for the credit in the following two years were deprived of a tax benefit that averaged more than $4,600 for the two years combined.

In a representative sample of two-year ban cases, the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) found:

In 19 percent of the cases, the IRS imposed the ban solely because EITC had been disallowed in a previous year;

In only 10 percent of the cases did a taxpayer’s response to the audit raise the possibility that he or she had the requisite state of mind to justify the two-year ban;

In 69 percent of the cases, the ban was imposed without required managerial approval;

In almost 90 percent of the cases, neither IRS work papers nor communications to the taxpayer contained the required explanation of why the ban was imposed; and

Taxpayers’ average income was about $15,500.

Low income taxpayers face unique obstacles in learning EITC rules and substantiating their entitlement to the credit, but IRS procedures do not take this into account. Instead, the IRS applies the two-year ban on the basis of unexamined assumptions about the taxpayer’s state of mind or even presupposes reckless or intentional disregard of the rules and regulations, potentially causing significant harm to taxpayers who may be entitled to EITC in a subsequent year.

Treasury > reports < that the other benefit programs results in high administrative costs and low error because of the necessity of the pre-qualification for benefits by a caseworker, whereas the EITC’s program’s administrative costs are less than 1% of the program benefits. The Treasury report continues that “the IRS screens EITC claims against certain criteria and also conducts approximately 500,000 audits of claims annually.”

Almost a Quarter of EITC Payments are in Error

Yet, considering that the IRS improperly bans taxpayers from the EITC program and performs 500,000 audits of EITC claims annually, 22.7% of the EITC is improperly paid. A challenging problem to be addressed. Low administrative cost but high rate of improper denial of eligibility and high rate of improper payment. Send me (or use comments below) suggestions of how these problems may be mitigated.

Treasury’s EITC Program Comments

A number of factors unique to the EITC program trigger errors. The complexity of the law contributes to confusion around eligibility requirements, mainly qualifying child relationship and residency rules. Other factors include high program turnover of one-third annually, return preparer errors, and fraud.

The IRS will continue to address EITC noncompliance through its aggressive compliance program which includes examinations, reviews of income misreporting, systemic corrections during tax return processing, and an enhanced focus on paid return preparers. Because tax return preparers handle two-thirds of returns claiming the EITC, the Department of the Treasury expects the implementation of new preparer requirements for registration, competency testing, continuing education, and compliance checks will improve EITC compliance, decrease fraud, and reduce overall program noncompliance.

For more than half a century, Tax Facts has been an essential resource designed to meet the real-world tax-guidance needs of professionals in both the insurance and investment industries.

Due to a number of recent changes in the law, taxpayers are currently facing many questions connected to important issues such as healthcare, home office use, capital gains, investments, and whether an individual is considered an employee or a contractor. Financial advisors are continually looking for updated tax information that can help them provide the right answers to the right people at the right time. This brand-new resource provides fast, clear, and authoritative answers to pressing questions, and it does so in the convenient, timesaving, Q&A format for which Tax Facts is famous.

“Our brand-new Tax Facts title is exciting in many ways,” says Rick Kravitz, Vice President & Managing Director of Summit Professional Network’s Professional Publishing Division. “First of all, it fills a huge gap in the resources available to today’s advisors. Small business is a big market, and this book enables advisors to get up-and-running right away, with proven guidance that will help them serve their clients’ needs. Secondly, it addresses the biggest questions facing all taxpayers and provides absolutely reliable answers that help advisors solve today’s biggest problems with confidence.”

The company also points out that the expert authors—Robert Bloink, Esq., LL.M., and William H. Byrnes, Esq., LL.M., CWM®—are delivering real-life guidance based on decades of experience.

“The authors’ knowledge and experience in tax law and practice provides the expert guidance for National Underwriter to once again deliver a valuable resource for the financial advising community,” added Kravitz.

Anyone interested can try Tax Facts on Individuals & Small Business, risk-free for 30 days, with a 100% guarantee of complete satisfaction. For more information, please go to www.nationalunderwriter.com/TaxFactsIndividuals or call 1-800-543-0874.

This > article < by Professor William Byrnes describes the ancient legal practices, codified in Biblical law and later rabbinical commentary, to protect the needy.

The ancient Hebrews were the first civilization to establish a charitable framework for the caretaking of the populace. The Hebrews developed a complex and comprehensive system of charity to protect the needy and vulnerable. These anti-poverty measures – including regulation of agriculture, loans, working conditions, and customs for sharing at feasts – were a significant development in the jurisprudence of charity.

The first half begins with a brief history of ancient civilization, providing context for the development of charity by exploring the living conditions of the poor. The second half concludes with a searching analysis of the rabbinic jurisprudence that established the jurisprudence of charity.

This ancient jurisprudence is the root of the American modern philanthropic idea of charitable giving exemplified by modern equivalent provisions in the United States Tax Code.

However, the author normatively concludes that American law has in recent times deviated from these practices to the detriment of modern charitable jurisprudence. A return to the wisdom of ancient jurisprudence will improve the effectiveness of modern charity and philanthropy.

This > article < by Professor William Byrnes studies this American political debate on the charitable tax exemption from 1864 to 1969, in particular, the debate regarding philanthropic, private foundations. The article’s premise is that the debate’s core has little evolved since that between the 1850s and 1870s.

To create perspective, a short brief of the modern economic significance of the foundation sector follows. Thereafter, the article begins with a review of the pre- and post-colonial attitudes toward charitable institutions leading up to the 1800s debates, illustrating the incongruity of American policy regarding whether and to what extent to grant charities tax exemption. The 1800s state debates are referenced and correlated to parts of the 1900s federal debate to show the similarity if not sameness of the arguments against and justifications for exemption. The twentieth century legislative examination primarily focuses upon the regulatory evolution for foundations. Finally, the article concludes with a brief discussion of the 1969 tax reform’s changes to the foundation rules and the significant twentieth century legislation regulating both public and private foundations.

This > article < by Professor William Byrnes traces Roman charity from its incipient meager beginnings during Rome’s infancy to the mature legal formula it assumed after intersecting with the Roman emperors and Christianity. During this evolution, charity went from being a haphazard and often accidental private event, to a broad undertaking of public, religious, and legal commitment. Charitable giving within ancient Rome was quite extensive and longstanding, with some obvious differences from the modern definition and practice of the activity.

The main differences can be broken into four key aspects. First, as regards the republican period, Roman charity was invariably given with either political or ego-driven motives, connected to ambitions for friendship, political power or lasting reputation. Second, charity was almost never earmarked for the most needy. Third, Roman largesse was not religiously derived, but rather drawn from personal, or civic impetus. Last, Roman charity tended to avoid any set doctrine, but was hit and miss in application. It was not till the imperium’s grain dole, or cura annonae, and the support of select Italian children, or alimenta were established in the later Empire that the approach became more or less fixed in some basic areas. It was also in the later Empire that Christianity made an enormous impact, helping motivate Constantine – who made Christianity the state religion – and Justinian to develop legal doctrines of charity.This study of Roman charitable activities will concern itself with several streams of enquiry, one side being the historical, societal, and religious, versus the legal. From another angle, it will follow the pagan versus Christian developments. The first part is a reckoning of Roman largesse in its many expressions, with explanations of what appeared to motivate Roman benefactors. This will be buttressed by a description of the Roman view of society and how charity fit within it. The second part will deal with the specific legal expressions of euegertism (or ‘private munificence for public benefit’ ) that typify and reveal the particular genius that Romans had for casting their activities in a legal framework. This is important because Rome is the starting point of much of charity as we understand the term, both legally and institutionally in the modern world. So studying Roman giving brings into highlight and contrast the beginnings of Charity itself – arguably one of the most important developments of the civilized world, and the linchpin of the Liberal ethos.

Published via the IRS Newswire (IR-2014-3) and on the Taxpayer Advocate website of the IRS on January 9, 2014, National Taxpayer Advocate Nina E. Olson released her 2013 annual report to Congress. The Taxpayer Advocate, replying on State Department statistics, cited that “7.6 million U.S. citizens reside abroad and many more U.S. residents have FBAR filing requirements, the IRS received only 807,040 FBAR submissions in 2012.”{1} The Taxpayer Advocate noted that “more than one million U.S. citizens reside in Mexico and many Mexican citizens reside in the U.S.” The Report pointed out that most persons that worked in Mexico had to pay into a government mandated retirement account (known as a AFORES), and that this retirement account may be reportable to the IRS as a foreign trust.

Regarding individual international tax compliance initiatives, the IRS Newswire reported that “Analyzing results from the IRS’s 2009 OVD program, the Advocate found the median offshore penalty was about 381% of the additional tax assessed for taxpayers with median-sized account balances, and 580% of the tax assessed for taxpayers with the smallest account balances (i.e., the bottom 10%, with an average $44,855 account balance). Taxpayers who “opted out” of the OVD program and agreed to subject themselves to audits fared better but still faced penalties of nearly 70% of the tax and interest.”

The Report stated: “Since 2009, the IRS has generally required those who failed to report offshore income and file one or more related information returns (e.g., the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR)) to enter into successively more punitive offshore voluntary disclosure (OVD) programs. … The programs were punitive, charging average penalties of more than double the unpaid tax and interest associated with the unreported accounts. … On average, the IRS assessed penalties of nearly 70% of the unpaid tax and interest in the audits of those who opted out.” The FBAR penalty of 50% of the account balance, for up to six years of non-compliance, equals a potential maximum FBAR penalty of 300% of the account itself, without regard to the actual tax due, interest thereupon, and tax penalties.

The finding that small account holding benign taxpayers paid penalties of nearly 600% of the actual tax due appears to be a miscarriage of the intent of policy makers. This situation has also led the Taxpayer Advocate to conclude that benign actors, in particular those with small non-reported accounts, made either soft disclosures or prospectively began to comply “… without subjecting themselves to the lengthy and seemingly-unfair OVD process.”

Regarding the 2012 IRS Streamlined OVD program, the taxpayer Advocate found that as of September 2013 2,990 taxpayers had submitted returns reporting an additional $3.8 million in taxes.

Like this:

Published via the IRS Newswire (IR-2014-3) and on the Taxpayer Advocate website of the IRS, National Taxpayer Advocate Nina E. Olson today released her 2013 annual report to Congress, urging the Internal Revenue Service to adopt a comprehensive Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TBOR).

The Newswire reminds the public that in a prior report, Olson analyzed the IRS’s processing of applications for tax-exempt status and concluded its procedures violated eight of the ten taxpayer rights she has proposed. The current Report though provided a broad rationale, based on internal coherence, collection efficiency, and international practices for Congress to codify a Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and for the meanwhile the IRS to issue its own. Examples of international practice included, by example, references to OECD Reports and to Canada’s practice. The Report quotes Thomas Jefferson: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences.”{1}

The Newswire quotes the Report “Taxpayer rights are central to voluntary compliance. If taxpayers believe they are treated, or can be treated, in an arbitrary and capricious manner, they will mistrust the tax system and be less likely to comply with the laws voluntarily. If taxpayers have confidence in the fairness and integrity of the system, they will be more likely to comply.”

Regarding efficiency, the Newswire focuses on the report’s emphasis that the U.S. tax system is built on voluntary compliance: 98% percent of all tax revenue the IRS collects is paid timely and voluntarily. Only 2% results from IRS enforcement actions. While arguing that knowledge of taxpayer rights promotes voluntary compliance, the report cites a survey of U.S. taxpayers conducted for TAS in 2012 that found less than half of respondents believed they have rights before the IRS and only 11 percent said they knew what those rights are.

Regarding coherence, the Report states: “The Internal Revenue Code provides dozens of real, substantive taxpayer rights. However, these rights are scattered throughout the Code and are not presented in a coherent way. Consequently, most taxpayers have no idea what their rights are and therefore often cannot take advantage of them.”

The report calls on the IRS to take the taxpayer rights that already exist and group them into ten broad categories, modeled on the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The report says the “simplicity and clarity” of a thematic, principle-based Taxpayer Bill of Rights would help taxpayers understand their rights in general terms.

1. The Right to Be Informed

2. The Right to Quality Service

3. The Right to Pay No More than the Correct Amount of Tax

4. The Right to Challenge the IRS’s Position and Be Heard

5. The Right to Appeal an IRS Decision in an Independent Forum

6. The Right to Finality

7. The Right to Privacy

8. The Right to Confidentiality

9. The Right to Retain Representation

10. The Right to a Fair and Just Tax System, Including Access to the Taxpayer Advocate Service

Like this:

On December 10, 2013, Senate Budget Committee chairman Patty Murray (D-WA) and House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) announced that they have reached a two-year budget agreement in advance of the budget conference’s December 13th deadline.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 would set overall discretionary spending for the current fiscal year at $1.012 trillion—about halfway between the Senate budget level of $1.058 trillion and the House budget level of $967 billion. The agreement would provide $63 billion in sequester relief over two years, split evenly between defense and non-defense programs. In fiscal year 2014, defense discretionary spending would be set at $520.5 billion, and non-defense discretionary spending would be set at $491.8 billion.

The sequester relief is fully offset by savings elsewhere in the budget. The agreement includes dozens of specific deficit-reduction provisions, with mandatory savings and non-tax revenue totaling $85 billion. The agreement would reduce the deficit by $23 billion.

Restriction on access to the Death Master File (fee based access going forward to cover its costs)

Identification of inmates requesting or receiving improper payments

FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY RETIREMENT

Federal Employees Retirement System for new employees

Annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62

HIGHER EDUCATION

Default Reduction Program

Elimination of nonprofit servicing contract

TRANSPORTATION

Aviation security service fees

Transportation cost reimbursement

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Limitation on allowable government contractor compensation costs: limits how much a contractor could charge the federal government for an employee’s compensation to $487,000, adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Employment Cost Index. (Comment: does this mean that government contractors are receiving more than $487,000 annually for an employee? How do I sign up?).

Last week on December 5, 2013 the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) publicly released its September 27 report titled: “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act: Improvements Are Needed To Strengthen Systems Development Controls For The Foreign Financial Institution Registration System”.[1] TIGTA’s objective was to assess the IRS’s systems development approach for the FATCA Registration Portal. Specifically, TIGTA evaluated the IRS’s established management controls and processes over information technology program management, security control processes, testing documentation, requirements management, and fraud prevention controls.

The IRS estimates that between 200,000 and 400,000 entities will register on its FATCA Online Portal. Industry groups have produced larger estimates based on by example various trust arrangements being categorized as Foreign Financial Institution (FFIs). April 25, 2014 is the deadline for registration to be included on the participating FFI (PFFI) list that will be issued in time to avoid FATCA withholding that will begin July 1, 2014.

Once an FFI is registered on the FATCA Portal, if it is not protected by an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the U.S. and its country or jurisdiction, the FFI will need to provide (and the IRS capture) identifying information for certain U.S. accounts maintained by the institution such as account number, balance, gross receipts, and withdrawals. TIGTA identified three key groups that FATCA directly impacts:

(2) FFIs that report to the IRS foreign financial account information exceeding certain thresholds held by U.S. taxpayers; and

(3) withholding agentswho withhold a 30 percent tax on taxpayers who fail to properly report their specified financial assets related to U.S. investments.

An October 2014 industry poll of 100 financial firms, half large firms, founds that more than 55 percent rated average to poor their understanding of FATCA.[2] The four critical challenges identified in that survey include: (1) lack regulatory requirement clarity, (2) FATCA expertise scarcity, (3) operational impact, and (4) data issues. According to the tax department of a tier 1 European bank, the signature of IGAs could reduce cost estimates to roughly US$100 million per institution covered by the respective IGA. Given the U.S.-U.K. IGA, the national cost estimate of the U.K. Revenue for impacted U.K. financial institutions is a one-off cost of approximately £900 million – £1.600 billion with an ongoing cost of £50 million – £90 million a year.[3]

In its report, TIGTA stated six recommendations for the IRS to improve system development, documentation, management, and testing.

(1) The Chief Technology Officer (CTO) and the Commissioner, LB&I Division, should ensure that the FATCA Organization PMO and FATCA information technology management timely identify and communicate system changes to minimize costs and reduce waste for future information technology development projects.

(2) The CTO should ensure that adequate program management controls are in place and are consistently followed to guide the future system development activities needed for the FATCA and to better position the IRS to accomplish its goals for improving the benefits of its FATCA goals and objectives.

(3) The CTO should ensure that the SCA Test Plan and Developer Security Test and Evaluation Plan are prepared so that all security requirements, security controls, and test cases are identified, traced, and tested, and all security testing is performed before deployment of Drop 1 to ensure that the FRS operates as intended.

(4) The CTO should ensure that all testing groups follow the recently established Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) procedures for documenting test cases for consistency in testing requirements and in detecting and correcting errors to ensure that the FRS meets all of its requirements as needed.

(5) The Commissioner, LB&I Division should establish IRM procedures for all testing groups to ensure that documentation of test cases is consistent with and supports the IT Organization requirements testing process.

(6) The CTO should ensure that IRM guidelines are followed so that the RTVM is established at the beginning of the testing life cycle and updated and maintained throughout the requirements management and testing processes, and that the RTVM is utilized on a regular basis to ensure that all FRS and future FATCA system requirements are included in test cases and tested.

Before the first version (Release 1.0) was shelved, the IRS expended $8.6 million of a $14.4 million forecast budget over 19 months on the FATCA Registration Portal (FFI Registration System or “FRS”). The current version (Release 1.1) is in development with a final forecast price tag to roll out a working version of the FRS of $16.6 million, i.e. $2.2 million over budget.

Examples of Key Capabilities and Features of FRS Release 1.0

Capabilities

Features

The FRS is a modern web-based application with 24/7 accessibility. Specifically, it:Ø Allows Financial Institution (FI) users to establish an online account, including the ability to choose a password and create challenge questions.Ø Displays a customized home page for FIs to manage their accounts.

Ø Establishes a streamlined environment for FIs to register in one place.

The FRS provides flexibility for FIs to report on and manage information throughout their corporate structure (branch and members). Specifically, the system:Ø Generates automatic notifications when an FI status changes.Ø Implements a universal numbering system (Global Intermediary Identification Number) that can be used by local taxing authorities.

In comparison of the expenditure overruns and technical glitches of the state and federal affordable health care (ACA or Obama Care) exchanges, the FRS budget overrun and push back seem quite successful. Of course, it remains to be seen if the FRS does not go further over-budget and if its roll out is not further pushed back. Yet it must be noted that the 2012 GAO report stated that: “In addition to its internal control deficiencies, IRS faces significant ongoing financial management challenges arising from its continued need to safeguard the large volume of sensitive hard copy taxpayer receipts and related information and to address its exposure to significant improper refunds based on identity theft.”

The 2012 TIGTA report on the Information Technology Program recognized that the IRS will have responsibility for the tax system but also for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). As a result of PPACA, the IRS has been assigned the job of overseeing all U.S. persons’ healthcare records in the new healthcare system. TIGTA identified weaknesses “over system access controls, configuration management, audit trails, physical security, remediation of security weakness, and oversight and coordination on security-related issues.” TIGTA further stated: “Until the IRS addresses security weaknesses, it will continue to put the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of financial and taxpayer information and employee safety at risk.”

Finally, the IRS was supposed to, has it already been five year ago now(?), have web-based access for each taxpayer of his/her IRS tax account. Still waiting on this customer service feature… But it must also be noted that over the past five years Congress has the IRS tasked with substantial new responsibilities without additional substantial resources to accomplish them all (too bad Congress pulled the plug on the additional 1099 reporting by all taxpayers – that would have been interesting to watch the IRS cope on top of the ACA and FATCA). Billions in incorrectly paid earned income tax credit payments has certainly made the headlines, with the implication being that Congress should have the IRS fix current challenges before forcing it to initiate new ones.

Maybe private enterprise would better accomplish certain tasks, or to take over certain functions – which leads to a different discussion about government / private partnerships and/or outsourcing of tax administration and collection (the Romans did that, as did feudal lords, and if I recall correctly, Bush II’s administration with regard to collections). But as a colleague shared with me today – medicare only has a 3% administrative cost whereas private enterprise runs as high as 70% administrative cost. So private enterprise may not be a cost effective solution. I look forward to discussing this topic in class….

As we inch closer to 2014, many clients are gearing up for a potential reduction in covered health benefits as employer-sponsored health plans are modified and insurers have begun cancelling coverage in anticipation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) effective date.

Planning for these costs is heating up, and the IRS has placed the significance of the health flexible spending account (FSA) as a tax-free funding tool in the spotlight. While reducing taxable income in light of higher tax rates is a priority for many clients, the potential for increased out-of-pocket medical expenses under the ACA may provide an even stronger motivation in 2014. As a result, the double tax benefits offered by FSAs have become more valuable than ever, and the IRS has recently taken steps to ease the restrictions that may have previously dissuaded clients from taking advantage of these vehicles.

In his first volley to start a serious discussion for reform of the U.S. taxation of the international activities of U.S. parent companies, Max Baucus, Senate Finance Committee Chairman released several draft tax bills yesterday. His release statement included, “The proposal — the first in a series of discussion drafts to overhaul America’s tax code — details ideas on how to reform international tax rules to spark economic growth, create jobs, and make U.S. businesses more competitive.”

The primary components of the proposed draft Bills include:

Income from selling products and providing services to U.S. customers is taxed annually at full U.S. rates.

Passive and highly-mobile income is taxed annually at full U.S. rates.

The drafts include two options that apply an annual minimum tax to income from products and services sold into foreign markets:

(1) apply a minimum tax rate to all such income, or

(2) tax such income at a lower minimum tax rate if derived from active business operations and at the full U.S. rate if not

Examples provided of a minimum rate include 60% and 80% of applicable U.S. tax, with an allowance for tax credit maintained.

The proposal calls for a ‘deemed repatriation’ of all historical earnings of foreign subsidiaries that have not been previously subject to U.S. tax, imposing a one-off tax at an example rate of 20%, payable over eight years. Tax credits would also be allowed as offset against this one-off tax.

The proposal seeks to eliminate of the international aspects of the “check-the-box” rule. Finally, the proposal explores mitigating ‘base profits erosion’ (BEPS) arrangements used by foreign multinationals to avoid U.S. tax.

Senator Baucus is quoted, “Over the past three years, the Finance Committee has examined every aspect of the tax code in an effort to fix a broken system. Through hearings, option papers and blank slate proposals, we’ve received input from key stakeholders and nearly every member of the Senate. These discussion drafts are the next step. They represent proposals collected throughout this process and provide a path forward on tax reform. Some are Democratic ideas. Some are Republican ideas. The common link is they are all ideas worth exploring.”

The Ranking (aka Minority) Member of the Committee, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, released a statement that significant policy differences must still be bridged before international tax reform is realized: “…. but the fact is that significant policy differences remain between both sides and a final agreement was never reached. I hope that once the budget conference negotiations have concluded that we can renew our discussions to determine whether we can find common ground to overhaul our tax code.”

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate that will require employers with more than 50 full-time employees to provide health coverage for those employees or pay a penalty that can reach $3,000 per employee has many small business clients scrambling to plan for years ahead. Because independent contractors are not counted toward the 50-employee limit, some small business clients may be tempted to reclassify common law employees as independent contractors to avoid the mandate.

Read Professor William Byrnes and Robert Bloink’s analysis of the issues, challenges, pitfalls and solutions for addressing a business’ future in a world of Obama Care at > Think Advisor <

The latest figures from America’s Health Insurance Plans tell the story: Enrollment in Health Savings Accounts has reached nearly 15.5 million, growing by almost 15 percent since last year and more than tripling in the past six years.

HSAs, for the uninitiated, are a central element in the so-called consumer-driven health care realm, designed to give individuals more control where and how their health care dollars are spent.

Six burning questions are answered about HSAs by William Byrnes and Robert Bloink at > Benefits Pro < in an open media format…

As of June 2013, Master Limited Partnerships (“MLPs”) have reached a market capital of $400 billion, with over 100 MLPs traded on major exchanges.[1] Generally established as LLCs with advantageous partnership flow through tax treatment, MLPs present attractive return vehicles to attract long term capital to the energy extraction, energy transportation (“midstream”), and most recent, energy distribution (“downstream”), markets. However, MLPs may result in unfavorable tax treatment for investors as well.

The Mertens Federal Income Taxation August 2013 Highlight by William Byrnes, Robert Bloink and Theron West examines the tax issues for MLP investors pre- and post- the 1986 Code, imposed MLP investment restrictions, and gradual relaxation thereof. The Highlight concludes with an analysis of the April 2013 legislative bi-partisan proposal, the Master Limited Partnership Parity Act, to extend MLP tax treatment to renewable (“green”) energy, and why this proposal is contentious.

Given the continuing Congressional gridlock over deficit reduction and heightened sensitivity of energy industry tax breaks in light of this, even with bipartisan support, renewable energy lobbyists will probably not realize passage this year. According to J.P. Morgan, “MLP distribution yields have generated 6-7%, and over the past twenty years, capital growth has totaled approximately 8% annually.[2] Regardless of whether MLPs eventually are expanded to encourage renewable energy investments, for the time being they present an alternative asset class that has the potential to produce high-yield returns, and therefore high investor interest.[3]

This article describes the ancient legal practices, codified in Biblical law and later rabbinical commentary, to protect the needy. The ancient Hebrews were the first civilization to establish a charitable framework for the caretaking of the populace. The Hebrews developed a complex and comprehensive system of charity to protect the needy and vulnerable. These anti-poverty measures – including regulation of agriculture, loans, working conditions, and customs for sharing at feasts – were a significant development in the jurisprudence of charity.

The first half begins with a brief history of ancient civilization, providing context for the development of charity by exploring the living conditions of the poor. The second half concludes with a searching analysis of the rabbinic jurisprudence that established the jurisprudence of charity. This ancient jurisprudence is the root of the American modern philanthropic idea of charitable giving exemplified by modern equivalent provisions in the United States Tax Code. However, the author normatively concludes that American law has in recent times deviated from these practices to the detriment of modern charitable jurisprudence. A return to the wisdom of ancient jurisprudence will improve the effectiveness of modern charity and philanthropy.

“. . . [w]hen the Finance Committee began public hearings on the Tax Reform Act of 1969 I referred to the bill as ‘368 pages of bewildering complexity.’ It is now 585 pages . . . . Much of this complexity stems from the many sophisticated ways wealthy individuals – using the best advice that money can buy – have found ways to shift their income from high tax brackets to low ones, and in many instances to make themselves completely tax free. It takes complicated amendments to end complicated devices.” Senator Russell Long, Chairman, Finance Committee

From the turn of the twentieth century, Congress and the states have uniformly granted tax exemption to charitable foundations, and shortly thereafter tax deductions for charitable donations. But an examination of state and federal debates and corresponding government reports, from the War of Independence to the 1969 private foundation reforms, clearly shows that politically, America has been a house divided on the issue of the charitable foundation tax exemption. By example, in 1863, the Treasury Department issued a ruling that exempted charitable institutions from the federal income tax but the following year, Congress rejected charitable tax exemption legislation. However thirty years later, precisely as feared by its 1864 critics, the 1894 charitable tax exemption’s enactment carried on its coat tails a host of non-charitable associations, such as mutual savings banks, mutual insurance associations, and building and loan associations.

Yet, the political debate regarding tax exemption for the non-charitable associations did not nearly rise to the level expended upon that for philanthropic, private foundations established by industrialists for charitable purposes in the early part of the century. But the twentieth century debate upon the foundation’s charitable exemption little changed from that posited between the 1850s and 1870s by Presidents James Madison and Ulysses Grant, political commentator James Parton and Dr. Charles Eliot, President of Harvard. The private foundation tax exemption evoked a populist fury, leading to numerous, contentious, investigatory foundation reports from that of 1916 Commission of Industrial Relations, 1954 Reece Committee, 1960 Patman reports, and eventually the testimony and committee reports for the 1969 tax reform. These reports uniformly alleged widespread abuse of, and by, private foundations, including tax avoidance, and economic and public policy control of the nation. The private foundation sector sought refuge in the 1952 Cox Committee, 1965 Treasury Report, and 1970 Petersen Commission, which uncovered insignificant abuse, concluded strong public benefit, though recommending modest regulation.

During the charitable exemption debates from 1915 to 1969, Congress initiated and intermittently increased the charitable income tax deduction while scaling back the extent of exemption for both private and public foundations to the nineteenth century norms. At first, the private foundation’s lack of differentiation from general public charities protected their insubstantially regulated exemption. But in 1943, contemplating eliminating the charitable exemption, Congress rather drove a wedge between private and public charities. This wedge allowed the private foundation’s critics to enact a variety of discriminatory rules, such as limiting its charitable deduction from that of public charities, and eventually snowballed to become a significant portion of the 1969 tax reform’s 585 pages.

This article studies this American political debate on the charitable tax exemption from 1864 to 1969, in particular, the debate regarding philanthropic, private foundations. The article’s premise is that the debate’s core has little evolved since that between the 1850s and 1870s. To create perspective, a short brief of the modern economic significance of the foundation sector follows. Thereafter, the article begins with a review of the pre- and post-colonial attitudes toward charitable institutions leading up to the 1800s debates, illustrating the incongruity of American policy regarding whether and to what extent to grant charities tax exemption. The 1800s state debates are referenced and correlated to parts of the 1900s federal debate to show the similarity if not sameness of the arguments against and justifications for exemption. The twentieth century legislative examination primarily focuses upon the regulatory evolution for foundations. Finally, the article concludes with a brief discussion of the 1969 tax reform’s changes to the foundation rules and the significant twentieth century legislation regulating both public and private foundations.

Searching for some good examples of American populist rhetoric to amuse a Law and Economics class, I re-stumbled upon William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech. For my non-U.S. students, the “Cross of Gold” speech is heralded as one of the best rhetorical speeches delivered in the U.S. Congress. My memory of grade school, reading Bryan’s folksy style, quickly refreshed with his opening …

“I would be presumptuous, indeed, to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom you have listened if this were but a measuring of ability; but this is not a contest among persons. The humblest citizen in all the land when clad in the armor of a righteous cause is stronger than all the whole hosts of error that they can bring. “ …

And of course his crescendo against the gold standard:

“Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”[1]

A week past, chatting with Professor Denis Kleinfeld as he was preparing for his course on International (Offshore) Financial Centers), he referred me author Jay Starkman’s book that includes numerous entertaining anecdotes about tax and U.S. history: The Sex of a Hippopotamus: A Unique History of Taxes and Accountancy. http://www.starkman.com/hippo/index.html (I’ve ordered a copy)

What happenstance to be reminded of Bryan’s Congressional speech in favor of the income tax. Besides having rhetorical merit near that of the Cross of Gold speech, Bryan provides a brief summary of income tax levied right ‘round the world (well, at least Europe). This opening certainly beats that of Cross of Gold:

“Mr. Chairman, if this were a mere contest in oratory, no one would be presumptuous enough to dispute the prize with the distinguished gentlemen from New York; but clad in the armor of a righteous cause I dare oppose myself to the shafts of his genius, believing that “pebbles of truth” will be more effective than the “javelin of error,” even when hurled by the giant of the Philistines.”

His income tax speech crescendo in favor of a 2% (aghast!) maximum rate lay prelude to the expatriation regimes of today:

“Of all the mean men I have ever known, I have never known one so mean that I would be willing to say of him that his patriotism was less than 2 per cent deep.”[2]

Now, for my Law & Econ class, I’m quite partial to the rhetoric of Huey P. Long, being that we share that great, sovereign, State of Louisana. Thus, I went with a couple of his quotes instead. For those of you who don’t know the folksy speeches of Huey P. Long, a good one-minuter about the (lack of) difference between Republicans and Democrats – view him here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=avGl7k4OGJY

“…It is here under this oak where Evangeline waited for her lover, Gabriel, who never came. This oak is an immortal spot, made so by Longfellow’s poem, but Evangeline is not the only one who has waited here in disappointment.

Where are the schools that you have waited for your children to have, that have never come?

Where are the roads and the highways that you send your money to build, that are no nearer now than ever before?

Where are the institutions to care for the sick and disabled?

Evangeline wept bitter tears in her disappointment, but it lasted only through one lifetime. Your tears in this country, around this oak, have lasted for generations. Give me the chance to dry the eyes of those who still weep here.”

coordinate withholding as appropriate and if necessary. The requirements are largely intertwined, with due diligence serving as the foundation for the reporting and withholding requirements.

Now that the final FATCA Regulations are published and a number of intergovernmental agreements (“IGAs”) have been signed, FFIs must implement practical steps to be FATCA compliant by January 1, 2014.There is no one-size-fits-all compliance plan for FFIs; however, there are many similar and consistent steps FFIs, regardless of location, can take to develop a FATCA compliance program to meet the broad goal of FATCA: to combat offshore tax evasion by U.S. persons and become FATCA compliant.

Before a FFI can become FATCA compliant, a FFI should take certain preliminary steps to determine the impact FATCA will have on the FFI as well as plan the path toward compliance in an efficient and timely manner.

Early in the process, the FFI should develop a FATCA task force or program team that will oversee the day-to-day operations to becoming FATCA compliant. The task force should include representatives from tax, anti-money laundering (“AML”) and customer on-boarding groups, technology, change management and operations as well as, potentially, other stakeholders. The task force will oversee the broad program plan for the FFI and likely report to the FATCA sponsoring executives or steering committee.

FFIs have to determine what, if any, communications they will prepare for both internal and external stakeholders concerning FATCA. An internal awareness and training program should be developed to teach FFI employees about FATCA and its importance to the FFI. The awareness program should start at the highest level to establish the necessary “tone at the top.”

The FFI may also want to prepare a list of questions, a “FAQs of FATCA,” to ensure the FFI’s clients are receiving a consistent message, regardless of where in the world they are located. FFIs should also determine what if any message they want to provide directly to clients or put on their websites, although it is very important that the FFI does not give unintentional tax advice to its clients.

Additionally, some training of FFI staff, including client-facing personnel, could assist with customers of the FFI receiving a clear and consistent message. It may likely be the FFI’s client-facing personnel are already receiving questions from customers regarding FATCA.

FFIs should take a proactive approach to minimize costs and interference with the customer experience at the FFI. With that in mind, prior to developing a FATCA compliance strategy, FFIs should conduct an assessment of the impact FATCA will have on the FFI by collecting information relating to:

Number and activity of each legal entity and/or business line;

Products and services offered by the business line;

Types and volume of accounts;

Relevant policies and procedures; and

Identification of information technology (“IT”) systems and databases that maintain relevant information and may require updates.

The FFI should also determine what past interactions it has had with the IRS or home country tax authority relating to information reporting on their customers. FFIs may be able to leverage past reporting for FATCA compliance.

FFIs around the globe may rely on other parties to take on certain responsibilities. For example, a foreign fund may outsource some or all of its asset custody, compliance and regulatory functions, transfer agency services and/or distribution. In this case, the FATCA compliance program will only be as strong as the weakest link.

Coordinating and ensuring all relevant parties are working towards FATCA compliance will be important since a FATCA compliance failure on behalf of an agent of the FFI can be construed as a failure by the FFI itself. Asking questions of the FFI’s third-party service providers will be an important early step. If a third-party service provider is not working towards FATCA compliance, the FFI may want to re-assess their relationship and engagement with that party.

After the impact assessment is complete, the FFI will need to plan a path forward that not only makes all of the information technology systems and policy changes, but also develops a working corporate governance structure and functioning compliance program. …

Chapter contributors:

Richard Kando, CPA (New York) is a Director at Navigant Consulting and served as a Special Agent with the IRS Criminal Investigation Division where he received the U.S. Department of Justice – Tax Division Assistant Attorney General’s Special Contribution Award.

Jeffrey Locke, Esq. is Director at Navigant Consulting. Prior to joining Navigant, he served as an assistant New York state attorney general in the Criminal Prosecutions Bureau and worked in the prosecutor’s office for the United Nations in Kosovo.

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) provides for withholding taxes to enforce reporting requirements on specified foreign accounts owned by specified U.S. persons or by U.S. owned foreign entities.

FATCA requires specified U.S. persons (U.S. citizen, residents and certain non-resident aliens) and specified domestic entities to report interests in specified foreign financial assets (SFFAs) if the aggregate value of those assets exceeds certain threshold. The regulations apply to domestic entities formed or availed of to hold, directly or indirectly, specified foreign financial assets. These specified entities include certain closely held corporations and partnerships that meet certain conditions and aggregation rules. Specified entities include domestic trusts if they meet certain criteria and exceed certain reporting threshold.

A U.S. owned foreign entity is an entity with one or more substantial U.S. owners. With certain exceptions, a substantial U.S. owner is any U.S. person with greater than 10% direct or indirect ownership interest in the foreign entity.

FATCA applies to U.S. persons who have specified foreign financial assets (SFFAs) whose value exceeds certain thresholds. The IRS announced in January 2013 that reporting by domestic entities with interests in specified foreign financial assets will not be required to file the IRS reporting form for FATCA, Form 8938, until after the date specified by final regulations, which will not be earlier than taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012.1

Entities and trusts are very different under U.S. law. Entities include partnerships, limited liability companies (LLCs), international business companies (IBCs), foundations, usufructs, and corporations. In entities, the title to the property owned is not divided.

In a trust, however, U.S. law splits the ownership of the title into two parts, legal and equitable. The trustee of the trust owns the legal title for the benefit of the beneficiary, who owns the equitable title. A trust is a relationship, not an entity, and is treated differently under both the existing QI rules and FATCA.

Specified Foreign Financial Assets (SFFAs)

Financial Accounts

The most common type of SFFA that banks will encounter is a financial account such as any depository or custodial account that is maintained by an FFI.2 A financial account also includes non-publically traded equity or debt interest in a depository or custodial institution, an insurance company, or an investment entity.3 …

Moreover, a financial account includes a non-publically traded equity or debt interest in a holding company or treasury center in an expanded affiliated group [See infra. Chapter 8]. This applies if the holding company or treasury center has at least one investment entity or passive NFFE and the income of the investment entity or passive NFFE in the group exceeds 50% of the group’s aggregate income.4 …

Assets

SFFAs include assets not held in an account. Stocks and securities issued by a non-U.S. person that are held for investment are SFFAs whether they are held in an account with a FFI or not. The same holds true for capital or profits interests in a foreign partnership, any form of debt issued by a non-U.S. person, or a beneficial interest in a foreign trust, foreign estate, or foreign entity. A litany of financial instruments collectively referred to as “swaps” are also SFFAs whether held in an account or not. Options and derivative instruments that have any non-U.S. parties or are issued by a non-U.S. issuer are also SFFAs.5 …

Exemptions from SFFA Definitions

FATCA does provide exemptions. An interest in a foreign security or social insurance program is not a SFFA. A stock of precious metals held in a foreign safe deposit box is not a SFFA. Any security or partnership interest used or held in the conduct of normal trade or business is considered not to be held for investment under FATCA. Stock, however, cannot be considered to be held in the conduct of normal trade or business for purposes of FATCA. Therefore, foreign stock is a SFFA.6 …

Example of SFFA

To clarify what may be considered an SFFA, consider the following example. Mr. Smith, a U.S. person resident in the U.S., has $1 million in a Swiss bank account. He owns a partnership interest in a hedge fund established in the Cayman Islands, and directly owns 5,000 shares of a publically traded Japanese corporation, JapanCo. He also has social security benefits in a foreign country. …

7. Foreign social security or social insurance programs are not specified as FFA, so they are not subject to FATCA reporting. Instructions to IRS Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets, p. 4.

Over 400 pages of compliance analysis !! now available with the 20% discount code link in this flier –> LN Guide to FATCA_flier.

The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance was designed in consultation, via numerous interviews and meetings, with government officials, NGO staff, large financial institution compliance officers, investment fund compliance officers, and trust companies, in consultation with contributors who are leading industry experts. The contributors hail from several countries and an offshore financial center and include attorneys, accountants, information technology engineers, and risk managers from large, medium and small firms and from large financial institutions. A sample chapter from the 25 is available on LexisNexis: http://www.lexisnexis.com/store/images/samples/9780769853734.pdf

Contributing FATCA Expert Practitioners

Kyria Ali, FCCA is a member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (“ACCA”) of Baker Tilly (BVI) Limited.

Michael Alliston, Esq. is a solicitor in the London office of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.

Amanda Castellano, Esq. spent three years as an auditor with the Internal Revenue Service.

Luzius Cavelti, Esq. is an associate at Tappolet & Partner in Zurich.

Bruno Da Silva, LL.M. works at Loyens & Loeff, European Direct Tax Law team and is a tax treaty adviser for the Macau special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China.

Prof. J. Richard Duke, Esq. is an attorney admitted in Alabama and Florida specializing over forty years in income and estate tax planning and compliance, as well as asset protection, for high net wealth families. He served as Counsel to the Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics 1983-1989.

Dr. Jan Dyckmans, Esq. is a German attorney at Flick Gocke Schaumburg in Frankfurt am Main.

Arne Hansen is a legal trainee of the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court of Hamburg), Germany.

Mark Heroux, J.D. is a Principal in the Tax Services Group at Baker Tilly who began his career in 1986 with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel.

Rob. H. Holt, Esq. is a practicing attorney of thirty years licensed in New York and Texas representing real estate investment companies.

Richard Kando, CPA (New York) is a Director at Navigant Consulting and served as a Special Agent with the IRS Criminal Investigation Division where he received the U.S. Department of Justice – Tax Division Assistant Attorney General’s Special Contribution Award.

Denis Kleinfeld, Esq., CPA. is a renown tax authoroverfour decades specializing in international tax planning of high net wealth families. He is Of Counsel to Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, PL, in Miami, Florida and was employed as an attorney with the Internal Revenue Service in the Estate and Gift Tax Division.

Richard L. Knickerbocker, Esq. is the senior partner in the Los Angeles office of the Knickerbocker Law Group and the former City Attorney of the City of Santa Monica.

Saloi Abou-Jaoude’ Knickerbocker Saloi Abou-Jaoude’ Knickerbocker is a Legal Administrator in the Los Angeles office of the Knickerbocker Law Group concentrated on shari’a finance.

Jeffrey Locke, Esq. is Director at Navigant Consulting.

Josh Lom works at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.

Prof. Stephen Polak is a Tax Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law’s International Tax & Financial Services Graduate Program where he lectures on Financial Products, Tax Procedure and Financial Crimes. As a U.S. Senior Internal Revenue Agent, Financial Products and Transaction Examiner he examined exotic financial products of large multi-national corporations. Currently, Prof. Polak is assigned to U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s three year National Research Program’s as a Federal State and Local Government Specialist where he examines states, cities, municipalities, and other governmental entities.

Dr. Maji C. Rhee is a professor of Waseda University located in Tokyo.

Jean Richard, Esq. a Canadian attorney, previously worked for the Quebec Tax Department, as a Senior Tax Manager with a large international accounting firm and as a Tax & Estate consultant for a pre-eminent Canadian insurance company. He is currently the Vice President and Sr. Wealth Management Consultant of the BMO Financial Group.

Michael J. Rinaldi, II, CPA. is a renown international tax accountant and author, responsible for the largest independent audit firm in Washington, D.C.

Edgardo Santiago-Torres, Esq., CPA, is also a Certified Public Accountant and a Chartered Global Management Accountant, pursuant to the AICPA and CIMA rules and regulations, admitted by the Puerto Rico Board of Accountancy to practice Public Accounting in Puerto Rico, and an attorney.

Hope M. Shoulders, Esq. is a licensed attorney in the State of New Jersey whom has previously worked for General Motors, National Transportation Safety Board and the Department of Commerce.

Jason Simpson, CAMS is the Director of the Miami office for Global Atlantic Partners, overseeing all operations in Florida, the Caribbean and most of Latin America. He has worked previously as a bank compliance employee at various large and mid-sized financial institutions over the past ten years. He has been a key component in the removal of Cease and Desist Orders as well as other written regulatory agreements within a number of Domestic and International Banks, and designed complete AML units for domestic as well as international banks with over three million clients.

Dr. Alberto Gil Soriano, Esq. worked at the European Commission’s Anti-Fraud Office in Brussels, and most recently at the Legal Department of the International Monetary Fund’s Financial Integrity Group in Washington, D.C. He currently works at the Fiscal Department of Uría Menéndez Abogados, S.L.P in Barcelona (Spain).

Mauricio Cano del Valle, Esq. is a Mexican attorney who previously worked for the Mexican Ministry of Finance (Secretaría de Hacienda) and Deloitte and Touche Mexico. He was Managing Director of the Amicorp Group Mexico City and San Diego offices, and now has his own law firm.

John Walker, Esq. is an accomplished attorney with a software engineering and architecture background.

Prof. William Byrnes was a Senior Manager then Associate Director at Coopers & Lybrand, before joining academia wherein he became a renowned author of 38 book and compendium volumes, 93 book & treatise chapters and supplements, and 800+ articles. He is Associate Dean of Thomas Jefferson School of Law’s International Taxation & Financial Services Program.

Dr. Robert J. Munro is the author of 35published books is a Senior Research Fellow and Director of Research for North America of CIDOEC at Jesus College, Cambridge University, and head of the anti money laundering studies of Thomas Jefferson School of Law’s International Taxation & Financial Services Program.

As the world becomes “smaller,” the dynamics of global financial transactions are intensifying. This is why the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) is one of the most important awareness issues in today’s tax policy and compliance arena. As new developments emerge almost daily in this ever-changing environment, the importance of working knowledge is increasingly pronounced. The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance, scheduled for release in May 2013, will be an invaluable resource of insight into FATCA principles, the reasons behind them, and the best practice steps financial institutions must follow in order to comply. Comprehensive coverage in this work, authored by Professor William Byrnes and Dr. Robert Munro, is complemented by content provided by highly qualified international contributors to render meaningful information about all aspects of FATCA.

The impact of FATCA is far-reaching: Affected financial institutions of many descriptions must navigate complex and challenging regulations to maintain compliance. In broad terms, foreignbanks, brokerages, pension funds, insurance companies and a host of other foreign businesses that disburse payments to U.S. citizens and residents are all subject to FATCA compliance. As agreements between nations are consummated and other FATCA developments unfold, the importance of awareness will only grow.

The LexisNexis® Guide to FATCA Compliance was designed in consultation, via numerous interviews and meetings, with government officials, NGO staff, large financial institution compliance officers, investment fund compliance officers, and trust companies, from North and South America, Europe, South Africa, and Asia, and in consultation with contributors who are leading industry experts. The contributors hail from several countries and an offshore financial center and include attorneys, accountants, information technology engineers, and risk managers from large, medium and small firms and from large financial institutions. Thus, the challenges of the FATCA Compliance Officer are approached from several perspectives and contextual backgrounds.

This edition will provide the financial enterprise’s FATCA compliance officer the tools for developing a best practices compliance strategy, starting with determining what information is needed for planning the meetings with outside FATCA experts.

This 330 page Guide contains three chapters written specifically to guide a financial institution’s lead FATCA compliance officer in designing a plan of internal action within the enterprise and interaction with outside FATCA advisors with a view of best leveraging available resources and budget [see Chapters 2, 3, and 4].

This Guide includes a practical outline of the information that should be requested by, and provided to, FATCA advisors who will be working with the enterprise, and a guide to the work flow and decision processes.

Treasury Advances Efforts to Secure International Participation, Streamline Compliance, and Prepare for Implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (January 17, 2013 U.S. Treasury Department of Public Affairs)

The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on January 17, 2013 issued comprehensive final regulations implementing the information reporting and withholding tax provisions commonly known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). Enacted by Congress in 2010, these provisions target non-compliance by U.S. taxpayers using foreign accounts. The issuance of the final regulations marks a key step in establishing a common intergovernmental approach to combating tax evasion.

These regulations provide additional certainty for financial institutions and government counterparts by finalizing the step-by-step process for U.S. account identification, information reporting, and withholding requirements for foreign financial institutions (FFIs), other foreign entities, and U.S. withholding agents.

The final regulations issued today:
 Build on intergovernmental agreements that foster international cooperation. The Treasury Department has collaborated with foreign governments to develop and sign intergovernmental agreements that facilitate the effective and efficient implementation of FATCA by eliminating legal barriers to participation, reducing administrative burdens, and ensuring the participation of all nonexempt financial institutions in a partner jurisdiction. In order to reduce administrative burdens for financial institutions with operations in multiple jurisdictions, the final regulations coordinate the obligations for financial institutions under the regulations and the intergovernmental agreements.

 Phase in the timelines for due diligence, reporting and withholding and align them with the intergovernmental agreements. The final regulations phase in over an extended transition period to provide sufficient time for financial institutions to develop necessary systems. In addition, to avoid confusion and unnecessary duplicative procedures, the final regulations align the regulatory timelines with the timelines prescribed in the intergovernmental agreements.

 Expand and clarify the scope of payments not subject to withholding. To limit market disruption, reduce administrative burdens, and establish certainty, the final regulations provide relief from withholding with respect to certain grandfathered obligations and certain payments made by nonfinancial entities.

 Refine and clarify the treatment of investment entities. To better align the obligations under FATCA with the risks posed by certain entities, the final regulations:

(1) expand and clarify the treatment of certain categories of low-risk institutions, such as governmental entities and retirement funds;

(2) provide that certain investment entities may be subject to being reported on by the FFIs with which they hold accounts rather than being required to register as FFIs and report to the IRS; and

(3) clarify the types of passive investment entities that must be identified and reported by financial institutions.

 Clarify the compliance and verification obligations of FFIs. The final regulations provide more streamlined registration and compliance procedures for groups of financial institutions, including commonly managed investment funds, and provide additional detail regarding FFIs’ obligations to verify their compliance under FATCA.

Progress on International Coordination, Including Model Intergovernmental Agreements

Since the proposed regulations were published on February 15, 2012, Treasury has collaborated with foreign governments to develop two alternative model intergovernmental agreements that facilitate the effective and efficient implementation of FATCA. These models serve as the basis for concluding bilateral agreements with interested jurisdictions and help implement the law in a manner that removes domestic legal impediments to compliance, secures wide-spread participation by every non-exempt financial institution in the partner jurisdiction, fulfills FATCA’s policy objectives, and further reduces burdens on FFIs located in partner jurisdictions. Seven countries have already signed or initialed these agreements.

Today, Treasury announced for the first time that Norway has joined the United Kingdom, Mexico, Denmark, Ireland, Switzerland, and Spain as countries that have signed or initialed model agreements. Treasury is engaged with more than 50 countries and jurisdictions to curtail offshore tax evasion, and more signed agreements are expected to follow in the near future.

Additional Background on the Model Agreements
On July 26, 2012, Treasury published its first model intergovernmental agreement (Model 1 IGA). Instead of reporting to the IRS directly, FFIs in jurisdictions that have signed Model 1 IGAs report the information about U.S. accounts required by FACTA to their respective governments who then exchange this information with the IRS. Treasury also developed a second model intergovernmental agreement (Model 2 IGA) published on November 14, 2012. A partner jurisdiction signing an agreement based on the Model 2 IGA agrees to direct its FFIs to register with the IRS and report the information about U.S. accounts required by FATCA directly to the IRS.

These agreements do not offer an exemption from FATCA for any jurisdiction but instead offer a framework for information sharing pursuant to existing bilateral income tax treaties. Under both models, all financial institutions in a partner jurisdiction that are not otherwise excepted or exempt must report the information about U.S. accounts required by FATCA. Therefore, the IRS receives the same quality and quantity of
information about U.S. accounts from FFIs in jurisdictions with IGAs as it receives from FFIs applying the final regulations elsewhere, but these agreements help streamline reporting and remove legal impediments to
compliance.

Background on FATCA

FATCA was enacted in 2010 by Congress as part of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act. FATCA requires FFIs to report to the IRS information about financial accounts held by U.S. taxpayers,
or by foreign entities in which U.S. taxpayers hold a substantial ownership interest. In order to avoid withholding under FATCA, a participating FFI will have to enter into an agreement with the IRS to:

 Identify U.S. accounts,
 Report certain information to the IRS regarding U.S. accounts, and
 Withhold a 30 percent tax on certain U.S.-connected payments to non-participating FFIs and account holders who are unwilling to provide the required information.

Registration will take place through an online system. FFIs that do not register and enter into an agreement with the IRS will be subject to withholding on certain types of payments relating to U.S. investments.

In the first moments of 2013, Congress eased the fiscal cliff tax increases for taxpayers earning less than $450,000 by enacting the American Taxpayer Relief Act (Act), permanently extending the Bush-era income tax cuts for this group. … While the legislation extends the current income tax rates for taxpayers earning less than $450,000 ($400,000 for single filers) per year, it allowed the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for all higher-income taxpayers. Similarly, taxes on capital gains, dividends, and estates were increased for the wealthiest taxpayers.

How Were Income Taxes Increased by the Fiscal Cliff Compromise?

How Does the Act Impact the Current System for Tax Deductions and Exemptions?

Were Capital Gains and Dividend Rates Impacted by the Act?

How Are Estate and Gift Tax Rates Affected?

What Other Changes Were Made?

Beyond the Act: What is the “Investment Income Tax”?

Planning Under the Act: How Should Clients Plan for Higher Taxes in 2013?

Clients today assume that the tax-free status of life insurance is a given and may have even engaged in fiscal cliff planning that involves the purchase of life insurance to provide a source of tax-free investment income. Given today’s political climate, it is important for clients to realize that no tax preference is safe and that the tax benefits they have come to expect from life insurance are no exception.

… While most compromise legislation has focused on allowing some of these rates to rise while maintaining current rates for lower-income groups, Congress may beable to leave most tax rates in place if they focus on capping deductions and reducing spending for all taxpayers. Of course,

With the election behind us, it is time for your clients to turn their attention to the looming tax reforms that should take shape over the next two months, and how these reforms can affect their retirement planning. Both arms of Congress will be working to reach a compromise on tax code provisions as basic as income tax rates before Jan. 1, after which the Bush-era tax cuts will expire, and rates could revert to pre-2001 levels.

Though President Obama spent little time discussing his views on tax-favored retirement accounts during his campaign, the plans he did set forth are indicative of the consequences for retirement savings. While this impact may not be immediately apparent to your clients, it is something that they need to consider as they plan for retirement this year and beyond. See the full article on National Underwriters’ Life Health Pro http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2012/11/13/retirement-planning-for-the-next-4-years-under-pre

As an advisor, your clients look to you for competent advice in planning their charitable giving. It would be terrible to find out that the gift you thoughtful suggest cannot be deducted due to an avoidable paperwork mistake. Although the IRS sometimes forgives these minor errors, others are unforgivable, as illustrated in recent IRS email advice.

The IRS was not so forgiving with a taxpayer, who made what would otherwise qualify as a tax-deductible charitable gift. The problem was that the taxpayer “failed to get a contemporaneous written acknowledgment” from the charitable organization. In its advice the IRS said it will deny the taxpayer’s charitable deduction even if the taxpayer takes remedial measures and the charity amends its Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax) to acknowledge the donation and include the information required by the Code.

Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).

The Obama Administration’s 2012 federal budget proposal has revived two budget proposals that recent scandals have directed a slew of regulatory attention on private placement. Considering examinations of private placements recently being characterized by a FINRA executive as a “major, major initiative, it would seem strange for the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to consider relaxing rules for marketing private placements.

Nevertheless, that’s exactly what SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro told members of Congress the agency is planning.

Speaking before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Shapiro said that the SEC is going to “take a fresh look” at rules relating to private placements and other securities offerings, both public and private. Specifically, she said that the agency will reconsider the private placement public marketing ban and the 500-investor threshold that categorizes a company as “public.”

Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).

The Obama administration’s 2012 budget includes an attack on corporate owned life insurance that could further erode its tax advantages and put a ding in carriers’ balance sheets. Washington’s repeated assaults on corporate-owned life insurance seem to be motivated by its view of corporate owned life insurance as simply a tax arbitrage opportunity for big corporations, ignoring its importance for smaller businesses that rely on a few key people to keep them afloat. Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX(sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).

Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? This topic discusses the Recovery Act spending and its effects on the national economy. It provides wealth managers with indicators and information to help clients better understand the use of government (taxpayer) funds and their allocation as a result of the financial crisis and ensuing financial recovery.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, enacted February 2009,[1] was designed to put Americans back to work and combat the largest downturn in the economy since the Great Depression. Through the Recovery Act, Congress allocated funds in three ways. The single largest part of the Act —more than one-third of it, or $288 billion— was tax cuts. Ninety-five percent of taxpayers have seen taxes go down as a result of the Act. [2]

The second-largest part or $244 billion — just under a third — was direct relief to state governments and individuals. This funding helped state governments avoid laying off teachers, firefighters and police officers and prevented states’ budget gaps from growing wider. On an individual level, the Act ensured those hardest hit by the recession received extended unemployment insurance, health coverage, and food assistance.

The remaining third or $275 billion of the Recovery Act financed the largest investment in roads since the creation of the Interstate Highway system; construction projects at military bases, ports, bridges and tunnels; overdue Superfund cleanups; clean energy projects; improvements in outdated rural water systems; upgrades to overburdened mass transit and rail systems; and much more.

The $787 billion (in total) economic Recovery plan included provisions, in sum, designed to (1) create and save jobs, (2) spur economic activity and invest in long-term economic growth, and (3) foster unprecedented levels of accountability and transparency in government spending.

The Recovery Act was intended to provide a short-term jump start to the economy, but many of the projects funded by Recovery money, especially infrastructure improvements, are expected to benefit economic growth for many years. Thus, the Recovery Act’s longer-term economic investment goals include:

Initiating a process to computerize health records to reduce medical errors and save on health-care costs

Investing in the domestic renewable energy industry

Weatherizing 75 percent of federal buildings and more than one million homes

Increasing college affordability for seven million students by funding a shortfall in Pell Grants, raising the maximum grant level by $500, and providing a higher education tax cut to nearly four million students

Cutting taxes for 129 million working households by providing an $800 “Making Work Pay” tax credit

Taxpayers with assets hidden in offshore accounts will get a second chance to voluntarily declare their assets to the IRS in return for reduced penalties under the new Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (“OVDI”).

This newest offshore amnesty program offers a reduced, 25% penalty which will be calculated based on the highest aggregate amount in the taxpayer’s offshore account between 2003 and 2010. In addition to penalties, program participants will be required to pay eight years of back taxes plus interest, accuracy related penalties, and delinquency penalties. Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX(sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).

Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? This discussion is focused on a hot topic in Washington and around the country. The new 1099 reporting requirements that are expected to come into effect next year may be amended or removed all together. Wealth managers would be well served to be knowledgeable on the subject that not only affects clients and their businesses, but it also directly affects many wealth managers themselves who pay for goods and services as a trade or business. Thus, here at Advanced Markets we bring wealth managers in particular the most relevant and up-to-date information on the web.

Repeal of the health reform law’s business-to-business 1099 reporting requirement is a step closer, with the U.S. Senate passing an amendment on February 2 that would repeal the provision. Praising passage of the Senate amendment, Senator Stabenow said, “Today we provided a common-sense solution for business owners so they can focus on creating jobs, not filling out paperwork for the IRS…. If left unchecked, 40 million small businesses would see their IRS 1099 paperwork increase 2000 percent.”

President Obama even praised the repeal efforts in his state of the union address, receiving a resounding round of applause. Acknowledging that his health care reform law has its share of flaws, and offering to work with the Congress to correct those flaws, he said that “We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses.” Read this complete analysis of the impact at AdvisorFX (sign up for a free trial subscription with full access to all of the planning libraries and client presentations if you are not already a subscriber).

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 4, the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011 by majority vote (314-112, with 76 Democrats joining a unanimous House GOP).[1] The legislation, if passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Obama, would repeal an expansion currently scheduled to take effect in 2012 of information that businesses must report to the Internal Revenue Service on Form 1099.

Specifically, the new legislation would amend the Internal Revenue Code to repeal the expanded 1099 information reporting requirements on payments made to corporations, rental property expense payments, and payments for property and other gross proceeds. The legislation would thus strike portions of section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code which were added by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPA).

The PPA expanded tax information reporting requirements to require businesses to issue a Form 1099 for any payments to corporations (rather than just to individuals) and for any payments for property (rather than just for services or investment income) that exceed $600 per year per payee. H.R. 4 would strike language requiring “amounts in consideration for property” and “gross proceeds” to be subject to 1099 reporting requirements under section 6041 of IRS Code in order to eliminate the expanded reporting requirements. The bill would also repeal expanded information reporting requirements on rental property expense payments that are currently in effect.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, repealing these expanded 1099 information reporting requirements for rental property expense payments as well as certain payments of more than $600 will reduce taxes by approximately $24.7 billion over ten years. [2]

Section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code outlines reporting requirements and generally requires information returns to be made by every person (payor) engaged in a trade or business that makes payments aggregating $600 or more in any taxable year to another person (payee) in the course of the payor’s trade or business. The information returns must be filed with the Internal Revenue Service and corresponding statements must be sent to each payee.

Beginning in 2012, certain payments not previously subject to 1099 reporting requirements, including those made to corporations and those made for property, will become subject to the reporting requirements under the PPA. The PPA and subsequent legislation expanded information reporting requirements of businesses for payments of $600 or more to any vendor and on rental property expense payments. Some argue, these new requirements would likely impose a huge tax compliance burden on small businesses, forcing them to devote resources to tax filing instead of to business expansion and job creation.

Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? This topic presents a discussion on information reporting regarding nonresident aliens and domestic interest income. Because some wealth managers work with international clients, or a family in which at least one family member like a spouse or child is foreign, it is helpful to discuss the new proposed reporting requirements as issued by the Department of the Treasury. Having a better understanding of the reported information that will end up in the hands of the IRS will hopefully help wealth managers focus on compliance, as well as wealth preservation and growth.

The Internal Revenue Service recently released new proposed regulations regarding reporting interest payments made to nonresident aliens. A nonresident alien is an individual who is neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States.[1] We will discuss in a later blogticle this week about how to determine if someone is either a US taxpayer or instead is a non-resident alien (not a US taxpayer).

The new proposed rules require the payor to make an information return on Form 1042-S, “Foreign Person’s U.S. Source Income Subject to Withholding” on interest payments aggregating $10 or more each year paid to a nonresident alien, that is otherwise reportable on a Form 1099 (interest income). [2]

The payor shall generally prepare and file Form 1042-S at the time and in the manner prescribed by the code and the regulations, for the calendar year in which the interest is paid. [3]

The IRS and Treasury Department first published, in 2001, a notice of proposed rulemaking which provided that U.S. bank deposit interest paid to any nonresident alien individual must be reported annually to the IRS. [4] Then in 2002, the Treasury Department and the IRS withdrew these regulations and proposed narrower regulations that would require reporting only on interest payments to nonresident alien individuals that are residents of certain designated countries or, at the option of the payor, on interest payments to all nonresident alien recipients of bank deposit interest. [5]

Under regulations currently in effect, reporting of U.S. bank deposit interest is required only if the interest is paid to a U.S. person or a nonresident alien individual who is a resident of Canada. [6]

The newest proposed regulations published this month withdraw previous regulations and provide proposed regulations that extend the information reporting requirement to include bank deposit interest paid to nonresident alien individuals who are residents of any foreign country.

The Treasury Department notes this extension is appropriate for several reasons: Read the analysis at AdvisorFYI

Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? A wealth manager should be able to present Advanced Market Intelligence on the long-term economic impact of government spending and its ability to raise revenues with clients.

The United States faces daunting economic and budgetary challenges. The economy has struggled to recover from the recent recession, which was triggered by a large decline in house prices and a financial crisis—events unlike anything this country has seen since the Great Depression.

For the federal government, the sharply lower revenues and elevated spending deriving from the financial turmoil and severe drop in economic activity—combined with the costs of various policies implemented in response to those conditions and an imbalance between revenues and spending that predated the recession—have caused budget deficits to surge in the past two years. The deficits of $1.4 trillion in 2009 and $1.3 trillion in 2010 are, when measured as a share of gross domestic product (GDP), the largest since 1945—representing 10.0 percent and 8.9 percent of the nation’s output, respectively. [1]

Also, the recovery in employment has been slowed not only by the moderate growth in output in the past year and a half but also by structural changes in the labor market, such as a mismatch between the requirements of available jobs and the skills of job seekers, that have hindered the employment of workers who have lost their job. Payroll employment, which declined by 7.3 million during the recent recession, gained a mere 70,000 jobs (or 0.06 percent), on net, between June 2009 and December 2010. [2]

However, under current law, CBO projects, budget deficits will drop markedly over the next few years—to $1.1 trillion in 2012, $704 billion in 2013, and $533 billion in 2014. Relative to the size of the economy, those deficits represent 7.0 percent of GDP in 2012, 4.3 percent in 2013, and 3.1 percent in 2014. From 2015 through 2021, the deficits in the baseline projections range from 2.9 percent to 3.4 percent of GDP. [3]

Nevertheless, the deficits that will accumulate under current law will push federal debt held by the public to significantly higher levels. Just two years ago, debt held by the public was less than $6 trillion, or about 40 percent of GDP; at the end of fiscal year 2010, such debt was roughly $9 trillion, or 62 percent of GDP, and by the end of 2021, it is projected to climb to $18 trillion, or 77 percent of GDP. [4] Read the analysis at AdvisorFYI

Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? Increasing the IRS staffing budget in certain departments may be indicative of increasing scrutiny of client’s information and tax returns. Increasing government scrutiny may lead to increased compliance costs in time and fees. Consequently, a wealth manager may want to address with client the need for increasing diligence in preparation of their affairs. Thus, Advanced Market Intelligence presents a discussion on the Internal Revenue Services’ allocations for fiscal year 2012, and contrasts 2010 data and figures.

The fiscal year 2012 proposed budget allocates $14 billion to the Department of the Treasury; a 4 percent increase above the 2010 enacted level. [1] The increase over 2010 levels is attributed to costs associated with implementation of legislation and new investments in IRS tax compliance activities that are aimed to help reduce the deficit. Of the $14 billion appropriated to the Treasury operations, over $13.28 billion is encumbered for the Internal Revenue Service.[2]

The Internal Revenue Service has allocated its appropriations to the tune of $2.345 billion for “Taxpayer Services”; $5. 96 billion for “Enforcement” of which over $5 billion is apportioned to “Exam and Collections”; “Operations and Support” represent $4.62 billion; and “Business Systems Modernization” together with “Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration” represent approximately $351 million. [3]

The main function of the Internal Revenue Service is to collect he revenue that funds the government and administer the nation’s tax laws. [4] The IRS collected $2.345 trillion in taxes (gross receipts before tax refunds) in 2010, or 93 percent of all federal government receipts.

Total resources to support the IRS activities for fiscal year 2012 are estimated to be around $13.626 billion, including $13.283 billion from direct appropriations, an estimated $138 million from reimbursable programs, and an estimated $204 million user fees. The direct federal budget appropriation is $1,137,784,000, 9.37 percent, more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $12,146,123,000. [5]

The IRS estimates new enforcement personnel will generate more than $1.3 billion in additional annual enforcement revenue once the new hires reach full potential in fiscal year 2014.

Even the Department of the Treasury notes, the tax law is complex and that even sophisticated taxpayers can make honest mistakes on their tax returns. To this end, the IRS states that it remains committed to a balanced program of assisting taxpayers to both understand the tax law and remit the proper amount of tax.

In fiscal year 2010, revenue from all enforcement sources at the IRS reached $57.6 billion, 18 percent more than in 2009. The significant increase was attributable in part to: Read the analysis at AdvisorFYI

Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? A producer should be able to present a perspective of the potential impact of current budget proposals upon investments that will be realized in the future. Thus, Advanced Market Intelligence discusses certain features to the proposed federal budget that impact fiscal year 2012.

The President’s new budget proposal included many revenue raising measures. However, below are two areas affecting the tax code that will actually increase the deficit, and also have a strong likelihood to have an impact on clients’ decisions made today.

Currently, the maximum rate of tax on the qualified dividends and net long-term capital gains of an individual is 15 percent. [1] In addition, any qualified dividends and capital gains that would otherwise be taxed at a 10- or 15-percent ordinary income tax rate are taxed at a zero percent rate.

The zero- and 15-percent rates for qualified dividends and capital gains are scheduled to expire for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. [2] In 2013, the maximum income tax rate on capital gains would increase to 20 percent (18 percent for assets purchased after December 31, 2000 and held longer than five years), while all dividends would be taxed at ordinary tax rates of up to 39.6 percent.

Taxing qualified dividends at the same low rate as capital gains for all taxpayers is said to reduce the tax bias against equity investment and promote a more efficient allocation of capital. Eliminating the special 18-percent rate on gains from assets held for more than five years is thought to further simplify the tax code. Read the analysis at AdvisorFYI

Why is this Topic Important to Wealth Managers? Clients will often ask for your “take” on the annual federal budget. It is important to show the client a command of the the facts and figures before addressing the political perspective of spending and revenue. Any producer can “mime” someone else’s perspective. Distinguish yourself with a command of the underlying numbers. Thus, this week Advanced Market Intelligence presents the facts and figures of the proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2012.

The new 2012 Federal Budget was released by the President. Below is a summary of the inflows and outflows concerning next year’s proposed budget (in billions of dollars).